More Nonsense from Ken Ham

Faith & Science Conversation
149

Sorry Cewoldt but all I see is confirmation bias in action. One wants them to be dinosaurs and so that is what one interprets them to be.

There are are only two to my mind that look remotely like dinosaurs. The Ica burial stones, which if they are genuine I would like a non-YEC source providing evidence of their provenance, please.

The Rock Pictograph from Utah is the other that looks most like a dinosaur. However, again I am are going to need more evidence than an image as proof.

In both instances I would gladly accept articles from a peer reviewed archeology journal. Journals would be even better.

1 Like
150

So what was Ken Ham’s God doing forever before 4004 BCE? I take it Earth is the only inhabited world in the entire fake universe. Why did his God change after eternity?

151

How could it be contaminated at the 100,000-year level? If it came into contact with anything recent containing carbon (air, a plant, a hand, a glove, etc. etc.), or a few cosmic rays, it would have that much. Any C-14 date over 60,000 is considered highly uncertain, because of the extreme ease of getting that level of contamination.

Messing with radiometric dates is highly problematic:

152

Well since you obviously trust C-14 dating, how do you explain the dating of a Homo sapiens jaw to 41,180–39,190 years ago? Kind of blows the 6,000 years provided by your interpretation of the Bible right out of the water.

1 Like
153

Your logic is that ancient artists depicted dinosaurs that they saw around them.

By this logic, I would conclude that a population of enormous sauropods roamed jolly England in the 15th century of the year of our Lord.

There is a great deal of English literature and art from this period. If there were a population of enormous sauropods roaming jolly old England during the Renaissance, I’m pretty sure we would have more sightings than this one dubious engraving.

The engraving could also be attributed to Bell being an amateur paleontologist, for that matter.

You have made an extraordinary claim, Craig, but the evidence you present is, to put it mildly, extremely weak as far as I can tell.

Best,
Chris

2 Likes
154

The provenance of the Ica stones has been more than questioned. They were admitted to be fakes by the person who “discovered” them. Not only that, but he appeared on a BBC documentary in which he showed how he faked them with a dentist’s drill and how he gave them their “aged” appearance by baking them in cow dung.

In any case, far from predicting discoveries about dinosaurs such as circles on their skin, they depict dinosaurs in ways that were widely portrayed in the 1960s but that are now known to be inaccurate or even outright false. T-Rex is depicted standing upright and dragging its tail along the ground, while in reality it stood horizontally with its tail sticking straight out the back. Theropod dinosaurs are now known to have had feathers, which are not depicted on the stones. None of the dinosaurs depicted have ever been discovered fossilised in Peru, while megafauna that did inhabit the area, such as terror birds and carnotaurus, are notable by their absence. The stones also depict UFOs, modern surgical techniques, world maps, and horses and carriages – a form of transport that was unknown to the Inca and Nazca people before the arrival of Europeans.

Sorry @cewoldt, but you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The claim that humans and dinosaurs coexisted is an extraordinary one and as such it requires extraordinary evidence. A tiny handful of drawings that are at best highly ambiguous and at worst blatant forgeries simply isn’t going to cut it.

Fun fact: my cousin is on the staff of Carlisle Cathedral. He assures me that the idea that sauropod dinosaurs roamed the Carlisle area in the 15th century is bonkers.

In any case, these engravings are so ambiguous that I can’t even tell which end is the head and which end is the tail.

6 Likes
155

Wow. Then what does that say about the honesty of the YEC site still promoting them? That’s worrisome (maybe it is ignorance, though, of the retraction)

2 Likes
156

You really need to read what I wrote in response to @SixDays above, Craig:

Were scientists surprised by what Mary Schweitzer found? That’s the wrong question to be asking. The question is whether scientists had any measurements to demonstrate that what she had found was impossible given the 66 million year timescale. They did not, so there was no need for anyone to “casually dismiss” anything.

There’s nothing “evolutionist” whatsoever about that. It’s how every area of science works.

3 Likes
157

At least one YEC site is saying not to promote them.
Bad arguments

2 Likes
158

Hi Craig,

Even Creation Ministries International renounces the use of the Ica Stones and the Mexican figurines as evidence!

In the case of both the Ica stones and the Acambaro figurines … the stories rely heavily on anecdotal evidence, and there is some uncomfortable counter evidence in both cases (numerous known cases of fraud and secrecy with the Ica stones, and reasonably powerful circumstantial evidence of fraud for the Acambaro figurines).

Source: Ica stones bad arguments

You are presenting known frauds and forgeries as evidence! To me, this shows that you are so concerned with upholding your opinion about evolution that you have abandoned good judgment. And if I cannot trust your good judgment, I must conclude that you are not to be trusted when you speak about anything scientific.

You clearly love your children and are involved in their education. That’s good. When they go off to college, they may very well learn that what their dad told them about God’s creation was based on frauds, forgeries, and misrepresentations. What will that do to their faith?

Please consider this: Now is the time to reckon with how you have handled evidence, before your kids get blindsided as young adults.

Sincerely,
Chris

6 Likes
159

Hey, I wrote an article about this. It really does all make sense, but you don’t need humans co-existing with dinosaurs for it to make sense.

7 Likes
160

So, apart from the excellent indirect, anecdotal evidence, and the books and the documentaries, that ancient miners and excavators found dinosaur remains, which of course they would have, absolutely obviously with hindsight, way before Cuvier, are there any actual links to academic findings. What does Wiki say?

From here:

There is a very interesting text by Pliny in which he tells us how the mayor Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, in the year 58 BC, brought to Rome and exhibited the fossil remains of a monster which appeared in Joppa , the present Jaffa , next to Tel-Aviv . Ancient people traditionally placed the episode of the myth of Perseus and Andromeda in Joppa (see in this blog itself. Perseus and Andromeda ).

Strabo, XVI, 2.28 (759); Mela, I, 11/64; Pliny NH V, 13/69; Josephus Bello Iudaico, III, 9.3 (420); Pausanias, IV, 35.6; Jerome, Comm. Ad Ion., I, 3 also placed the episode there, or at least they said that remains of the chains of Andromeda emerged from the rock. Alost all of them mention that remains of Andromeda´s chains emerged from the rock of Joppa .

Naturally the remains brought by Scaurus were identified with the sea monster that was supposed to devour Andromeda .

Pliny [23-79 AD] tells us, NH IX, 4/11:

M. Scaurus, in his ædileship, exhibited at Rome, among other wonderful things, the bones of the monster to which Andromeda was said to have been exposed, and which he had brought from Joppa, a city of Judæa. These bones exceeded forty feet in length (about 13 meters), and the ribs were higher than those of the Indian elephant, while the back-bone was a foot and a half in thickness (about 45 centimeters).
…
Suetonius [69-122 AD], also makes a reference to fossil remains of large animals when he refers to the “villae” of Augustus and says in Life of Augustus 72 3

Those of his own, which were far from being spacious, he adorned, not so much with statues and pictures, as with walks and groves, and things which were curious either for their antiquity or rarity; such as, at Capri, the huge limbs of sea-monsters and wild beasts, which some affect to call the bones of giants; and also the arms of ancient heroes. (J. Eugene Reed. Alexander Thomson. Philadelphia. Gebbie & Co. 1889.)

The above writer Antonio Marco Martínez mentions Adrienne Mayor.

I’m astounded at my ignorance of these ancient historical findings. If Rome found dinosaur bones, and Greece, and China, so did Persia, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt. Even the Jews. Especially the intelligentsia exposed to all of these cultures.

5 Likes
161

In the Sahara, Wadi El Hitan had whale fossils laying exposed in the remote desert. Talk about the fish that got away stories which must have circulated from any ancients who encountered these.

5 Likes
162

The psalm talking of leviathan being fed to the beasts of the desert maybe a reference to those whale fossils as well.

163

There are some pretty good reasons to believe the behemoth was actually a bull or an ox. Ben Stanhope has a pretty good video on the subject.
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AxGARM5cYKY]

1 Like
164

Even the ESV study Bible notes that “tail like a cedar” was undoubtedly a Hebrew euphemism intended to communicate virility.

5 Likes
165

I don’t think that either Leviathan or Behemoth were intended to be identified with any specific known creature. Rather, it seems to me that they are more generic terms referring to large sea creatures and large land animals in general respectively. The traits that are listed are something of a mishmash – a tail swinging like a cedar could easily refer to a crocodile, and bones like bars of iron could be inspired by elephants. Furthermore, in Isaiah 27, Leviathan is specifically described as a sea serpent.

The idea that they refer to sauropod dinosaurs is eisegesis rather than exegesis, and outright science fiction at that. Note in particular that nowhere are we told that behemoth has a long, sauropod-like neck.

2 Likes
166

That’s a bit of a stretch. I’d like it to be true, but it’s a lonnnnnggg stretch

Psalms 74:14 - Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness

167

Interesting, some versions translate it “people of the desert”. Others “creatures” and “animals.” In any case, I can see how stories of big bones in the desert would inspire the psalmist.

168

They were discovered three thousand years after his inspiration.